The Information Age will be the Death of Islam

GERMANY-ISLAMFaith Freedom, by Eric Allen Bell, Jan. 14, 2015:

We do not vandalize. We do not engage in hate speech. We have respect for the law. We do not harm our fellow citizens. We are slow to anger and when we finally get angry, we express that anger in a civilized way. UNDER THAT BANNER, I WILL STATE THE FOLLOWING:

Follower of Islam, I do not tolerate you. Your feigned or willful ignorance, about Islam, is no longer an excuse. I hold you personally accountable.

I am offended by you. I cannot and will not tolerate a person, who follows an ideology, which teaches the inferiority of women, the killing and hatred of Jews, the execution of homosexuals, the silencing of free speech, forced amputations, the stoning of rape victims, genital mutilation, and the violent overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and civilizations.

Islam is Nazism with a god. And I cannot and will not “coexist” with Nazis. I will not patronize your places of business. I will not hire you. I will not buy your products. I will not support politicians who support you. I will not be your friend. And if I am your neighbor, I will always be suspicious of you and cautious. I want you to feel so uncomfortable in my free country, in my civilized country, that you renounce your allegiance to this savage and fascist ideology or leave.

ISLAM IS THE ENEMY of free speech, of human rights and of Liberty. If you follow Islam, you are my enemy. I encourage you now to leave Islam and take your place among the civilized people of this world. But if you insist on remaining loyal to the brutal savagery of Islam, your enemies will grow faster than can be contained, by an Islamic lobbyist group or the media or any government agency. This is a zero sum game and the Civilized World will win.

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT WAR FOR 1,400 YEARS with freedom and all that is good. But my head is no longer hidden in the sand. I am at war with you. All people who value human rights, freedom and Liberty should be at war with you. And they will be soon enough, because the enemy of Islam is information and we are spreading information faster than you can keep up with. There is no way to put this genie back in the bottle now. The information age will be the death of Islam.

Your 1,400 year reign of terror is coming to an end. And you, follower of Islam, are on the wrong side of history.

It is time for all civilized people to find the moral clarity and the courage to GET ANGRY and to BECOME INTOLERANT. You have the ability to do this in a civilized way. We must not become like the savages whom we oppose – otherwise they win. Islam is Nazism with a god. Islam must be stopped. When you support the followers of Islam, you support an ideology that promotes genocide against the unbeliever – as clearly outlined in the Quran.

THE TIME HAS COME TO BOYCOTT THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM. FOLLOWER OF ISLAM, I PERSONALLY HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING THIS FASCIST IDEOLOGY.

Tolerance is overrated. If you follow the Quran, you are the enemy of freedom and you are my enemy.

Eric Allen Bell is a filmmaker, columnist and Counter Jihad activist. He was banned from the Liberal-Progressive Daily Kos for writing 3 articles about Islam which ran afoul of the politically-correct mindset there. He is director of both Global Infidel TV, and Mosque Confidential and is currently in production on a documentary feature entitled, “American Infidel”. You can read more about Bell’s conversion story in “The High Price of Telling the Truth about Islam”. Visit him on Facebook at http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell

Also see:

PALESTINIAN PROPAGANDISTS INFILTRATE THE CHURCH

150127popepalestineWND, by JIM FLETCHER, Feb. 1, 2015:

Americans are trusting. We want to believe good about people. It’s part of the open, free society built by decent folks. It separates us from other cultures, and at the end of the day it’s better to be optimistic than pessimistic.

Unless danger lurks.

When delirious activists and regular citizens joyously took sledgehammers to the Berlin Wall, most of us watched the television images with wonder. Finally, the Evil Empire was gone, along with the Nazis and the ancient Assyrians and all the other historical totalitarian states.

Collectively, free people and especially those who fight for freedom breathe a sigh of relief when evil is defeated. Think America, circa 1945-46. We went back to developing this great country, and an unprecedented era of prosperity followed.

Yet, our enemies didn’t take a day off. They didn’t go shopping or to the beach. The result was decades of a Cold War that got dicey at times.

The period of 1989-91 doesn’t exactly feel similar, although seemingly we defeated communism.

Except that I don’t think we did. Totalitarians never really go away. They change their spots and strategies, but never really are defeated. In his extraordinary book, “Dupes,” Paul Kengor outlines in chilling detail how the Soviets (beginning even before World War 2!) targeted the U.S. for destruction, from within.

Agents were sent to cozy up to political and religious leaders, and it is this latter group I find fascinating.

American Christians, including the leadership, usually are affable and trusting. They want to believe in the good of humanity, although our own sacred writings poke holes in that worldview.

So it is that the same strategies used in 1940 are still being used by our enemies. I find it fascinating that the Soviets schooled Muslim terrorists like Yasser Arafat not only in operational plans, but also – more critically – in the use of propaganda.

It is this propaganda that is plaguing our nation now, nowhere more evident than in religious circles.

In the 1990s, Arafat let loose the crocodile tears and lamented the alleged Israeli policy of keeping Muslims from their holy sites.

Except there was no such policy. In reality, only under the Israelis have religious minorities enjoyed wide access to holy sites.

That didn’t keep religious types like the leadership of the United Methodist Church from putting an affectionate arm around the PLO terror chief.

For decades, some key American Christian leaders have embraced totalitarians, ranging from Fidel Castro to Sheik Nasrallah of Hezbollah.

Curious, curious.

Now, the propaganda of the jihadists has infiltrated American evangelicalism, incredibly, and herein lays perhaps the greatest victory of the jihadists in their drive to take down America. If Christian leadership is duped, what hope is there for the laity?

It was with alarm that I saw a social media message recently from Andy Braner, director of Camp KIVU, a Colorado-based camp for young people. Braner is a charismatic, dedicated and passionate mentor for youth, and comes from the fairly famous Kanakuk Kamps.

I have tracked for the last few years the effort by Palestinian leaders, both the Palestinian Authority and its dhimmi (subjugated) Christian population, to network with influential American Christians. This is almost solely for the purpose of pushing the PLO narrative and undermining/demonizing Israel. The net effect is an erosion of support for Israel among next-generation (Millennial) Christian evangelicals.

They are succeeding wildly, in my view.

Braner has just announced a spring 2015 trip to what is generally referred to in these circles as “the Holy Land.” I suspect even this description is an effort to avoid saying “Israel” in a positive light.

“KIVU Holy Land 2015” promises to be quite the adventure, but one with knowledge of Palestinian duplicity can scan the itinerary for KIVU’s planned trip and recognize immediately that something is rotten in Ramallah.

The webpage devoted to the trip features a prominent photo of a contingent posing in front of the Dome of the Rock, the Muslim shrine to Muhammad. Below that is a most interesting itinerary.

After the usual Christian sites through Day 3, we find that the group will begin the meaty part of the trip in Bethlehem. This biblical city, where of course Jesus Christ was born, is now under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is really a cleaned-up-for-the-cameras version of the old PLO, Israel’s sworn enemy. So any group visiting the town will be treated to a propaganda fest that would make Joe Stalin swoon.

First thing on the agenda for Day 4 is a trek to the Holy Land Trust, run by Sami Awad, the point man for the Palestinian agenda. Identifying himself as a proponent of non-violent protest of Israel’s alleged occupation of the Palestinian people, Awad actually spends a good deal of time traversing the U.S., speaking in churches.

Further on Day 4, the group of impressionable youth will be treated to lunch at Bethlehem Bible College, a hotbed of anti-Israel invective, and later, the group will “visit a refugee camp and walk around the wall.”

Keep in mind, language has meaning. Words mean something. Visiting a refugee camp means there is a 100-percent certainty the American youth will talk to downtrodden Palestinians who will read from their scripts about alleged Israeli abuses. There will be no mention of the 100-year Arab terror war against Jews, because, well, that just wouldn’t fit the agenda.

And the “walk around the wall”? That will entail more tales of woe about how Israel has built a “big, open-air prison” that separates Palestinians from family and good jobs elsewhere in the country. Again, no mention of the thousands of murdered Jews at the hands of homicide bombers, etc., since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Hence, the need for a security fence, most of which is wire and not high, cement walls.

On Day 5, the group will visit another Palestinian-controlled city, Hebron, where they will meet with a Christian Peacemaker Team. The group is decidedly anti-Israel.

Later in the day is an option to visit a “settlement.” Notice that it isn’t referred to as an Israeli community, but as a “sssssettlement.” That fits the Palestinians’ political agenda, to further label Jews as illegitimate colonizers.

Leftists in the American church are quite good at shaping the dialogue during “settlement” visits, making sure the usually unsuspecting Jewish hosts are portrayed in the worst possible light.

Starting to get the picture?

Day 6 features a picnic with locals, so one can be sure the Israel-bashing will be in full swing.

Day 7 features “Silwan threatened – the political threat,” which refers to an Arab village on the slopes opposite Jerusalem’s Old City. There, no doubt, the youth will hear about the nefarious plans by the Jews to “Judaize” Jerusalem. I find this to be a particularly outrageous political statement by the trip organizers.

Later in the day, there is a planned visit to Jerusalem’s Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, but I have two thoughts about this: The visit provides cover from critics who rightly point out the outrageous propaganda trip overall, and I’m quite sure somewhere along the way, the youth will hear about how the Jews subtly became Nazi-like in their treatment of the poor Palestinians, who of course were simple shepherds and farmers set upon by hordes of Jews after World War II, who forcibly established a state.

Look, there is no way I’d allow my child to participate in such a trip. Does Braner know that his group is being used by skilled Palestinian propagandists?

One would hope not.

Why Obama Needs to Pretend the Taliban Aren’t Terrorists

pic_giant_013115_SM_TalibanNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 31, 2015:

No doubt because of my background investigating, prosecuting, and studying terrorism, the cynical claim by White House spokesmen that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization has annoyed me even more than the Obama administration’s nonstop lying usually does. No surprise then that I could be found railing about it on The Kelly File Thursday night.

In that spirit, ten thoughts for the weekend:

1. Under federal law, there are only three requirements for a group to qualify as a “foreign terrorist organization”: It has to be (a) foreign, (b) engaged in “terrorist activity” (bombings, assassinations, etc., carried out to intimidate people and change policy), and (c) a national-security threat to the United States. The law that covers this is Sec. 1189(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, from the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. It’s here, and it’s just the first few lines — even a president who routinely ignores the laws he is sworn to execute faithfully should be able to make some time for it, maybe on the plane ride between the golf course and the Saudi palace.

2. Obviously, even if it were true, as posited by Messrs. Schultz and Earnest (speaking for President Obama), that the Taliban is concerned only with Afghanistan, not with the global jihad, that would be irrelevant. They easily fit the definition of a foreign terrorist organization.

3. Of course, it is not true that the Taliban is concerned only with Afghanistan. The administration’s risible claim to the contrary is part of its campaign to bleach the Islam out of radical Islam. Islamic supremacism, the ideology that fuels jihadist terror, is a global conquest ideology. Obama wants you to believe that there is just a dizzying array of small, disconnected, strange-sounding, indigenous “insurgent” groups that are not joined by any unifying ideology — the Afghan Taliban (not to be confused with the Pakistani Taliban), Hamas, Hezbollah, the Haqqani Network, Boko Haram, al-Nusra, Ansar al-Sharia, the sundry jihadist franchises that invoke al-Qaeda’s name (in the Arabian Peninsula, in the Islamic Maghreb, in the Indian subcontinent . . . ), and so on. You are not to see them as a united front against the West, but instead as animated by strictly parochial political and territorial disputes. The strategy, a disingenuous elevation of semantics over substance, is designed to minimize the global jihadist threat to the West that has intensified on Obama’s watch and has undeniable roots in a supremacist interpretation of Islam.

4. You need not take my word for it when it comes to the Taliban’s ideological connection to the global jihad. Instead, just look at what they do. What did the Taliban do when they ruled Afghanistan? They willfully allowed their territory to be used as a launch pad for attacks against the United States (the 1998 embassy bombings in eastern Africa, the 2000 bombing of the Cole, and the 9/11 atrocities). And after 9/11, when, by simply handing bin Laden & Co. over to the United States, they could have stayed in power and avoided an invasion of the Afghanistan they are said to be preoccupied with, what did they do? At enormous cost to themselves, they tried to shelter al-Qaeda. In the 14 years since, they have continued to abet the global jihadist campaign, and have reveled in making war against the United States — a war they now understandably think they will win.

5. The Taliban’s continued alliance with al-Qaeda’s global jihad is of a piece with Hamas’s self-proclaimed incorporation in the Muslim Brotherhood’s global ambitions, and with the forward-militia role Hezbollah plays for Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolutionary state that exports its Shiite version of jihad. All of these actors perceive themselves as enmeshed in a civilizational struggle against the West. We can’t erase that by pretending there is no animating ideology, pretending that they can be pacified if we satisfy their local grievances.

6. This business of distinguishing “insurgents” from “terrorists” is nonsense. An insurgency is just a domestic uprising (in the sense that the insurgent is from the country in which he is rebelling). When insurgents use terrorist tactics they are domestic terrorists. It may make Obama feel better to say that his pal Bill Ayers was an “insurgent,” but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a terrorist.

7. The most disturbing facet of the “insurgent” canard is that Obama is buying the logic of such Islamic supremacists as the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They claim that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations (as American law designates them to be) but domestic political organizations that engage not in terrorism but in “resistance” — a righteous fight against “injustice” and “occupation” in their homelands.

8. Obama, of course, is not approving of the Taliban’s tactics and goals. But he wants you to see them as domestic insurgents because progressives believe insurgents should be negotiated with and brought into a political settlement — and to the extent insurgents go overboard in their aggression, progressives believe they should be prosecuted in the civilian justice system, not fought militarily like wartime enemies.

9. In the United States, Obama is operating in a political environment where the public — based on longstanding prudential American policy — believes we should not negotiate with terrorists because that encourages and legitimizes their savage methods. Similarly, the public strongly believes international terrorists are enemies who must be defeated, not defendants who must be indicted. Obama knows he is negotiating with, intends to settle with, and eventually will leave Afghanistan to the tender mercies of, the Taliban. Therefore, the administration is desperate that you not look at the Taliban as terrorists.

10. But they are terrorists.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Judge Jeanine Pirro: “They Kill Americans? They’re Terrorists!”

Published on Jan 31, 2015 by Steven Laboe

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Blistering Opening Statement on Barack Obama’s continued denial to refer to the Taliban as Terrorists

***

State Dept Won’t Label Taliban Attack that Killed Three American Civilians as Terrorism

 

BY:
January 30, 2015 

The White House has already doubled down this week saying that the Taliban is an armed insurgency and not a terrorist group. The State Department is now joining the White House in not saying whether the Taliban is a terrorist group.

The Taliban has taken credit for killing three American soldiers at the Kabul airport Thursday. At the State Department press briefing Friday, State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki danced around a the question if the attack on the American soldiers was an act of terrorism.

Psaki repeated the story back to the reporter who asked the question and mentioned that the Justice Department has already spoken on the subject and that there is an investigation into the situation.

“I’m not going to put new labels on the situation today,” Psaki said.

Iran: Unafraid and Undeterred

New-Iranian-President-Hassan-Rouhani-encouraged-by-Obamas-positive-tone-NBC-News-645x325-450x318rontpage, by Caroline Glick, Jan. 30, 2015:

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Israel’s reported strike January 18 on a joint Iranian-Hezbollah convoy driving on the Syrian Golan Heights was one of the most strategically significant events to have occurred in Israel’s neighborhood in recent months. Its significance lies both in what it accomplished operationally and what it exposed.

From what been published to date about the identities of those killed in the strike, it is clear that in one fell swoop the air force decapitated the Iranian and Hezbollah operational command in Syria.

The head of Hezbollah’s operations in Syria, the head of its liaison with Iran, and Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of Hezbollah’s longtime operational commander Imad Mughniyeh who was killed by Israel in Damascus in 2008, were killed. The younger Mughniyeh reportedly served as commander of Hezbollah forces along the Syrian-Israeli border.

According to a report by Brig.-Gen. (res.) Shimon Shapira, a Hezbollah expert from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the Iranian losses included three generals. Brig.- Gen. Mohammed Alladadi was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps liaison officer to Hezbollah and to Syrian intelligence. He was also in charge of weapons shipments from Iran to Hezbollah. Gen. Ali Tabatabai was the IRGC commander in the Golan Heights and, according to Shapira, an additional general, known only as Assadi, “was, in all likelihood, the commander of Iranian expeditionary forces in Lebanon.”

The fact that the men were willing to risk exposure by traveling together along the border with Israel indicates how critical the front is for the regime in Tehran. It also indicates that in all likelihood, they were planning an imminent attack against Israel.

According to Ehud Yaari, Channel 2’s Arab Affairs commentator, Iran and Hezbollah seek to widen Hezbollah’s front against Israel from Lebanon to Syria. They wish to establish missile bases on the northern Hermon, and are expanding Hezbollah’s strategic depth from Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley to the outskirts of Damascus.

On Wednesday night, Yaari reported that the Syrian military has ceased to function south of Damascus. In areas not held by the al-Qaida-aligned Nusra Front and other regime opponents, the IRGC and Hezbollah have taken control, using the Syrian militia they have trained since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011.

The effectiveness of Hezbollah’s control of its expanded front was on display on Wednesday morning. Almost at the same time that Hezbollah forces shot at least five advanced Kornet antitank missiles at an IDF convoy along Mount Dov, killing two soldiers and wounding seven, Hezbollah forces on the Golan shot off mortars at the Hermon area.

While these forces are effective, they are also vulnerable. Yaari noted that today, three-quarters of Hezbollah’s total forces are fighting in Syria. Their twofold task is to defend the Assad regime and to build the Iranian-controlled front against Israel along the Golan Heights. Most of the forces are in known, unfortified, above ground positions, vulnerable to Israeli air strikes.

THE IDENTITIES of the Iranian and Lebanese personnel killed in the Israeli strike indicate the high value Iran and Hezbollah place on developing a new front against Israel in Syria.

The fact that they are in control over large swathes of the border area and are willing to risk exposure in order to ready the front for operations exposes Iran’s strategic goal of encircling Israel on the ground and the risks it is willing to take to achieve that goal.

But Iran’s willingness to expose its forces and Hezbollah forces also indicates something else. It indicates that they believe that there is a force deterring Israel from attacking them.

And this brings us to another strategic revelation exposed by the January 18 operation.

Earlier this week, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdolahian told Iran’s IRNA news agency that the regime had told its American interlocutors to tell Israel that it intended to strike Israel in retribution for the attack. The State Department did not deny that Iran had communicated the message, although it claims that it never relayed the message.

While the Obama administration did perhaps refuse to serve as Iran’s messenger, it has worked to deter Israel from striking Hezbollah and Iranian targets in Syria. Whereas Israel has a policy of never acknowledging responsibility for its military operations in Syria, in order to give President Bashar Assad an excuse to not retaliate, the US administration has repeatedly informed the media of Israeli attacks and so increased the risk that such Israeli operations will lead to counterattacks against Israel.

The US has also refused to acknowledge Iran’s control over the Syrian regime, and so denied the basic fact that through its proxies, Iran is developing a conventional threat against Israel. For instance, earlier this month, Der Spiegel reported that Iran has been building a secret nuclear facility in Syria. When questioned about the report, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf sought to downplay its significance. When a reporter asked if the administration would raise the report in its nuclear negotiations with Iran, Harf replied, “No, the upcoming talks are about the Iranian nuclear program.”

Until this month, the White House continued to pay lip service to the strategic goal of removing Assad – and by inference Iran, which controls and protects him – from power in Syria. Lip service aside, it has been clear at least since September 2013, when President Barack Obama refused to enforce his own redline and take action against the Assad regime after it used chemical weapons against its opponents, that he had no intention of forcing Assad from power. But this month the administration crossed a new Rubicon when Secretary of State John Kerry failed to call for Assad to be removed to power in talks with the UN envoy in Syria Staffan de Mistura. Right before he met with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Kerry told Mistura, “It is time for President Assad, the Assad regime, to put their people first and to think about the consequences of their actions, which are attracting more and more terrorists to Syria, basically because of their efforts to remove Assad.”

IRAN’S PRESENCE on the Golan Heights is of course just one of the many strategic advances it has made in expanding its territorial reach. Over the past two weeks, Iranian-controlled Houthi militias have consolidated their control over Yemen, with their overthrow of the US-allied government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

Rather than defend the elected government that has fought side-by-side with US special forces in their Yemen-based operations against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the administration is pretending that little has changed. It pretends it will still be able to gather the intelligence necessary to carry out drone strikes against al-Qaida terrorists even though its allies have now lost power.

The post-Houthi-conquest goal of the administration’s policy in Yemen is to seek a national dialogue that will include everyone from Iran’s proxy government to al-Qaida.

The idea is that everyone will work together to write a new constitution. It is impossible to understate the delusion at the heart of this plan.

With the conquest of Yemen, Iran now controls the Gulf of Aden. Together with the Straits of Hormuz, Iran now controls the region’s two maritime outlets to the open sea.

Far beyond the region, Iran expands its capacity to destabilize foreign countries and so advance its interests. Last week, Lee Smith raised the reasonable prospect that it was Iran that assassinated Argentinean prosecutor Alberto Nisman two weeks ago. Nisman was murdered the night before he was scheduled to make public the findings of his 10-year investigation into the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish Center and the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. According to Smith, Nisman had proof that Iran had carried out the terrorist attacks to retaliate against Argentina for abrogating its nuclear cooperation with Tehran.

From the Golan Heights to Gaza, from Yemen and Iraq to Latin America to Nantanz and Arak, Iran is boldly advancing its nuclear and imperialist agenda. As Charles Krauthammer noted last Friday, the nations of the Middle East allied with the US are sounding the alarm.

Earlier this week, during Obama’s visit with the new Saudi King Salman, he got an earful from the monarch regarding the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But it seemed to have no impact on his nuclear diplomacy with Teheran. The administration believes that Iran and Saudi Arabia will be able to kiss and make up and bury a thousand- year rivalry between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam because they both oppose the Islamic State. This too is utter fantasy.

Israel’s January 18 strike on Iranian and Hezbollah commanders in Syria showed Israel’s strategy wisdom and independent capacity.

Israel can and will take measures to defend its critical security interests. It has the intelligence gathering capacity to identify and strike at targets in real time.

But it also showed the constraints Israel is forced to operate under in its increasingly complex and dangerous strategic environment.

Due to the US administration’s commitment to turning a blind eye to Iran’s advances and the destabilizing role it plays everywhere it gains power, Israel can do little more than carry out precision attacks against high value targets. The flipside of the administration’s refusal to see the dangers, and so enable Iran’s territorial expansion and its nuclear progress, is its determination to ensure that Israel does nothing to prevent those dangers from growing – whether along its borders or at Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Video: Sebastian Gorka on defining the Enemy

Published on Jan 31, 2015 by Steven Laboe

Obama Administration Refuses to say “Radical Islam”

Mark Steyn Pushes Back on the Media’s Denial of ‘No-Go Zones

12863279085_6467259d66_k-640x480Breitbart, by JOHN HAYWARD, Jan. 30, 2015

When the mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for “slandering” her city by reporting on Muslim-dominated “no-go zones,” liberal media outlets forgot their own years of reporting on those zones to bash their hated right-leaning cable news adversary.

Among the longtime observers who pushed back against no-go zone denialism is author Mark Steyn, who has mentioned these hostile, unassimilated communities in his columns and books for years.

Steyn appeared on Canadian host Ezra Levant’s program to discuss no-go zones and the Islamization of Europe on Thursday:

 

Steyn makes a crucial point about how Islamization thwarts the healthy assimilation process of immigrant communities, leaving them permanently alienated from host cultures they perceive as weak and spiritually unsatisfying.  The resulting “hole in the heart,” as Steyn describes it, is a void radical Islam eagerly rushes forward to fill.  The degree of alienation present in these no-go zones is horrifying.  We can debate what percentage of a community’s population is accurately represented by the angry and dispossessed people who make outsiders reluctant to travel into a hostile district, but the practical result, no matter how informally it might be understood, cannot be erased with happy thoughts or media spin.

In his decade-old book America AloneSteyn related an incident that illustrated the informal, but very real, understanding that non-Muslims are not welcome in certain Muslim-dominated districts:

When Martine Aubry, the Mayor of Lille, daughter of former Prime Minister and EU bigwig Jacques Delors and likely Presidential candidate in the post-Chirac era, held a meeting with an imam in Roubaix, he demanded that it take place on the edge of the neighborhood in recognition that his turf was Muslim territory which she was bound not to enter. Mme Aubry conceded the point, as more and more politicians will in the years ahead.

Steyn quoted another passage from America Alone with a certain no-go flavor in a blog post on the day the Charlie Hebdo killers were brought down by French police:

Four years after 9/11, it turned out there really is an explosive “Arab street,” but it’s in Clichy-sous-Bois. Since the beginning of this century, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They’re losing that battle…

If Chirac, de Villepin and co aren’t exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren’t doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They’re seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the ‘burbs gets you more “respect”, they’ll burn ‘em again, and again. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. And why should they be? On present demographic trends, it will be for ethnic Europeans to assimilate with them.

The tendency of Western authorities to pretend Islamist tendencies are an insignificant ripple in the deep pool of peaceful Islamic thought was indicted by Steyn in that January 10 blog post: “The louder the perpetrators yell ‘Allahu Akbar’ and rejoice that the Prophet has been avenged, the louder M Hollande and David Cameron and Barack Obama and John Kerry and the other A-list infidels insist there’s no Islam to see here. M le Président seems to believe he can champion France’s commitment to freedom of expression by conscripting the entire nation in his monstrous lie.”  The subsequent push by French politicians and American editorial writers to pretend the banlieues don’t exist fits neatly into that thesis.

The subject of no-go zones came up last week, during one of Steyn’s regular appearances on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show:

I’ve walked around the East End. I’ve walked around, for example, past what used to be a famous gay pub on, just off the Commercial Road that is no longer there, where what they call the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets is, now holds sway. A couple of years ago on Holocaust Memorial Day, a group of Jews were touring the old Jewish West End, where fellows like Lionel Bart, the composer of Oliver, came from. And they were greeted by youths of a certain persuasion who pelted them with stones, and a Canadian tourist and an American tourist wound up being taken to the hospital. That’s Jews stoned on Holocaust Memorial Day in the East End of London.

Likewise, there are no-go zones in parts of Birmingham in the Midlands, where in nothing flat, a city that was 0% Muslim 50 years ago now is 22% Muslim. They’re the demographic energy in the city. A senior British police officer was talking about this. He was saying, he wasn’t calling them no-go zones. He was putting it in a sort of positive way, that these communities prefer to police themselves, as it were. And that’s why we just leave them to get on with it. And one consequence of that is that nobody who isn’t a member of those “communities” likes to go there. But those no-go zones are not as advanced as they are in France, but they are real and they are growing in British cities.

They’re true in Sweden. I walked through Rosengard in Sweden. And I was warned by the two lovely, leggy Swedish blondes I was having a cup of coffee with twenty minutes earlier not to go there at dusk. And you go there at dusk, and it’s all fiercely bearded young men and covered women who came from Muslim countries where they didn’t have to be covered, but they emigrate to Sweden, and suddenly, not to get into any trouble from those bearded, young men, they’re forced to go covered. Those no-go zones are real in almost every country in Western Europe now.

But we’re supposed to believe they’re not real, because they don’t have big “KEEP OUT OR DIE, INFIDEL!” billboards denoting their perimeter, and they’re not labeled “Muslim No-Go Zone #23″ on the official maps of major European cities. The whole debate turned into one of multi-culturalism’s frequent “I See Five Lights” tests, where we’re supposed to signal our submission to intellectual torture by formally disavowing the evidence of our lying eyes.  It’s not likely to prove an effective antidote against an aggressive ideology whose appeal flows from conquering weaker cultures.  Conquerors do not regard the willfully blind as difficult opponents.

One other location that should be highlighted on any map of no-go zones is Rotherham, in South Yorkshire, England. Rotherham was more precisely a didn’t-go zone. Over 1,400 girls, as young as 11 years of age, were sexually abused in Rotherham over the course of 16 years by a “grooming gang” of mostly Pakistani Muslim men. (In fact, the UK Daily Mail reports that, as more victims keep coming forward, Labour MP Sarah Champion recently said she thinks the final total will be well over 2,000.)  The girls were threatened with harm, and harm to their families, if they spoke out… but some of them did contact the authorities, only to be roundly ignored due to politically-correct blindness.  The fear of being called out as racist or bigoted paralyzed local authorities.

Even after a bombshell report made the dimensions of the Rotherham horror clear – including gang rape, human trafficking, and such disciplinary measures as dousing a young girl with gasoline and threatening to strike a match unless she kept quiet – resignations and reprimands came at an agonizingly slow pace.  In fact, the Daily Mail quotes one of the victims saying in December that she thinks the grooming gangs are still in business, perhaps worse than ever, but slightly more circumspect about hiding their activities from marginally less blind authorities.  “I’m still seeing my abusers driving young girls in their car. They’re untouchable,” she complained, adding that six months after the scandal broke, “we’ve had no arrests, we’ve had no charges, evidence is still being lost.”

The refusal to assimilate ultimately requires a certain degree of indulgence from the host society.  Insularity is difficult to enforce against a confident surrounding culture.  The legal principles and economic policies of a nation have a great deal to do with how directionless and alienated young people from all racial and cultural backgrounds feel.  There are no-go zones and won’t-go splotches of politically correct blindness on the map because they are tolerated, and that won’t change if politicians and the media insist on ignoring them.

‘No-go’ zones ‘fact of life’ in Europe

islam_for_franceWND, By Jerome Corsi, Jan. 30, 2015:

NEW YORK – Amid controversy over whether or not Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Europe, Soeren Kern, a senior fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute and also at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group, contends they are “a well-known fact of life” in many parts of the continent.

“Europe’s no-go zones are the byproduct of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from – rather than become integrated into – their European host nations,” Kern wrote Jan. 20 in a Gatestone Institute paper titled “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction.”

Kern asserted the “problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist.”

“Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue,” he said.

As WND reported, Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, ignited the furor when he said in a Fox News interview Jan. 11, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo threatened to sue Fox News, charging its coverage of the issue “insulted” Paris, and the news channel issued an apology. But contrary to how it was widely reported, Fox News didn’t apologize for saying there were “no-go” zones, and supporters of Emerson argued he was guilty only of overstatement, not fabrication.

“I think Steve Emerson’s biggest mistake was to apologize so profusely,” Kern argued. “If Emerson had just said, ‘I made a mistake and what I meant to say was parts of Birmingham, not all of Birmingham,’ that would have been OK. But once you apologize and show the slightest bit of weakness, the attackers attack and try to devour. I think that’s what happened to Steve.”

In an interview with WND, Kern said supporters of multiculturalism typically have derided any news source or politician who dares openly proclaim the existence of “no-go” zones throughout Europe.

He believes the damage done to Emerson by the comment will pass.

“Emerson is a solid researcher, and his work is very well respected,” Kern said. “I think this will blow over; but we’re already entering presidential campaign mode for 2016, and I believe the entire controversy over ‘no-go’ zones in Europe is a completely fake, contrived controversy.

“I think the controversy is really only in the United States, and the French picked up on it,” he said. “If you read the readers comments in the French newspapers on the Fox News controversy, it is overwhelmingly, like nine comments out of 10, that readers agree with what Fox News said originally. Ordinary readers in France know what’s going on, even if the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to cover it up.”

Failed model

Kern believes the “multicultural model in Europe is failing.”

“There has been so much invested in this over the last 30 years, that those people who are promoting this are very afraid this is going to be reversed,” he said.

Kern stressed that uncontrolled immigration of a growing Muslim population is the underlying issue in many European countries.

“In Europe, like in the United States, immigration is literally out of control,” he said. “But the big difference is that in the United States, when you have Latin American immigrants coming across the border, they have a Roman Catholic Western worldview. But in Europe, with mass immigration coming from North Africa and the Middle Eastern countries, it’s a completely different worldview.”

Consequently, he said, a “huge clash of civilizations develops in Europe, and I think that’s why many want to cover this up and discredit anybody who talks about this openly.”

He thinks “the writing is on the wall,” and many more terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo in Paris are inevitable, particularly in Europe.

Kern cited the rise of populist politicians such as Marine Le Pen in France, with polls showing that if there were a presidential race in France today there would be a blowback, as “a lot of French people are upset that immigration, security and integration issues have been swept under the carpet too long.”

Read more at WND

Newt Gingrich on the Islamist Threat and America’s Survival

 

PJ Media, By Andrew C. McCarthy On January 30, 2015:

How is our nation dealing with the continuing menace of Islamic supremacism, the ideology that catalyzes the jihadist and cultural threat to the West?

At the Freedom Forum in Iowa last Saturday, Newt Gingrich drew an apt analogy to the period from the end of World War II through 1948, as the Iron Curtain consigned half of Europe to tyranny: Imagine that the president of the United States had been not Harry Truman but Stalin’s useful idiot, Henry Wallace – the former vice president whom FDR thankfully dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1944.

Had that happened, Gingrich opined, our president would have been assuring us, “There is no KGB. There is no Comintern. The Soviet Union is not a threat. Communism is okay. I don’t think you should be worried about all these things.”

Meaning: What we’d have had is defeat in the Cold War.

Newt’s admonition was clear. In a rousing speech about “America’s survival,” the former House speaker argued that, after being at it for fourteen years, we are losing “the war with radical Islamists.”

His main point, one very similar to the contention advanced by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (in a recent London speech that was the subject of my NROcolumn last weekend), is that we are at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy the West, and that we cannot win the war without telling the truth about the enemy — indeed, “without admitting it’s a war.”

In the interest of candor, then, I will concede that I am not crazy about the term Newt uses to describe the enemy: “radical Islamists.” The right term is “radical Islam.” An Islamist is a Muslim who wants repressive, discriminatory sharia imposed. In the West, an Islamist is radical by definition.

It is not pedantry to raise this difference. When we say “radical Islam,” we concisely divide our enemies – extremist, sharia-supremacist Muslims, violent or nonviolent – from the rest of Islam, with which we would like to live amicably. But saying “radical Islamist” implies that there must also be “moderate Islamists.” There aren’t, of course, but the progressives’ insistence that there must be has led to exactly what the former speaker is rightly concerned about: paralyzing political correctness and reckless policy errors (e.g., Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood) – the things that obscure the threat to us.

Still, any difference of opinion on this point is narrow. “Radical Islamist” is geometrically more clarifying than the Beltway’s willfully blind preference, “violent extremist.” Moreover, in invoking “radical Islamists,” the former House speaker is clearly referring to violent jihadists – i.e., Islamists who commit terrorism. Terrorists are radical even among Islamists – although Islamist support for terrorists (at least moral support and often material support) is alarmingly high.

Our bipartisan ruling elite attempts to minimize the ideological underpinning of the Islamist threat as well as its geographical scope. Gingrich was firm that the jihad is formidable, unified and global. In its blatant contempt for our government, the Iranian regime locks up a journalist and enables its proxies to rout Yemen (which Obama had touted as a counterterrorism success) — confident that the Obama administration will keep talking to them and appeasing them no matter what they do. ISIS, of course, has obliterated the border between Iraq and Syria even as Western leaders grope for country-specific policies based on a map that no longer exists.

But that’s not the half of it. As Gingrich elaborated, Western intelligence estimates about ISIS in Syria and Iraq warn us of at least 1,000 jihadists from France, 600 from Britain, and 100 from the United States. Many if not most of these Islamists will return home not just with training and combat experience but with an enhanced prestige that comes with taking part in the jihad – a prestige that makes them more effective recruiters, fundraisers, and practitioners of domestic jihad.

Meanwhile, as the threat intensifies, Western governments, led by our own, continue to lie about it. The ruthless Boko Haram jihadist organization in Nigeria has 10,000 fighters (and, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week, it eyes conquest in nearby Chad, Cameroon and Niger). Yet, under Hillary Clinton, the State Department would not even designate it as a terrorist organization – even though, Gingrich sharply observed, Boko Haram named one of their main training camps “Afghanistan” in honor or the Taliban.

Again, that’s not the half of it. Under Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton, the State Department has declined to designate the Afghan Taliban itself as a terrorist organization. This underscores Newt’s on-target assessment that, when it comes to obfuscation about Islamic supremacist ideology, the State Department was nearly as bad under Bush as under Obama. And while Bush at least included the Taliban as a terrorist organization in a 2002 executive order, Obama spokesmen have spent this week spinning the risible yarn that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization but a purely domestic “insurgent” group.

In truth, as the former speaker asserted, we have an elite in both parties that is unwilling to tell the truth. You can’t win the war without telling the truth and without admitting it’s a war. As he put it, there is a common thread that unites the enemy, wherever on earth the enemy operates: They “hate our civilization and would impose their religion by force.”

This cannot be blinked away – neither by what Gingrich tartly but accurately diagnosed as Obama’s “pathological incapacity to deal with reality,” nor by the ineffable John Kerry’s insistence that jihadist terror has nothing to do with Islam – that these atrocities are committed by “specific, unique, random individuals” who just happen to be Muslims bent on imposing sharia.

From his national security right perspective, Newt anticipated and dismissed as “Baloney!” an attack on his position from the strange-bedfellow alliance of antiwar leftists and extremist libertarians who see U.S. counterterrorism as a greater threat than the jihad. It is the claim that what Gingrich is really calling for is “an army of 7 million” so we can “occupy everywhere” in the Middle East.

As he countered, we are talking about defeating an enemy whom we must identify. And in identifying that enemy “we can draw a clear distinction.” To wit:

If you are a Muslim, and you want to live in peace with your neighbors, and you have no problem with people converting in both directions, and you’d like to be allowed to have a mosque but, by the way, they can have a synagogue, a temple, or a church – I have no problem with Muslims who are prepared to live in diversity. But if you’re a Muslim who believes you are going to impose sharia by cutting off my head, I have a desire to kill you before you cut off my head.

The ensuing standing ovation from Freedom Forum attendees carried a salient message for the GOP’s field of would-be presidential nominees: A Republican will not win the White House in 2016 unless national security is a major issue and one on which Republicans hold a decisive edge.

The keys to gaining that edge are candor, clarity and courage. As Newt recounted, Churchill took the time to read and understand Mein Kampf. He was unafraid to call the threat to civilization what it was, even when no one in England or Europe wanted to listen. Reagan – “not having gone to Harvard Law School and been thoroughly educated in how to avoid reality” – understood that when Stalinists said they wanted to conquer the West, what they meant was … that they wanted to conquer the West. In his “magnificent” post-9/11 speech to a joint session of Congress, George W. Bush warned rogue regimes that they had a choice to make: With us, or with the terrorists?

It is again time – past time – to be bold in calling the threat against us what it is, and in understanding why it seeks to conquer us (i.e., in grasping that it is about their ideology not our flaws). That has been the essence of self-defense throughout history, and it hasn’t changed.

Among the best parts of Newt’s excellent speech was its call for practical action. With Republicans now in control of both houses of Congress, he argued that conservatives can serve the cause of national security by demanding months of hearings to examine, to speak bluntly about, the Islamist challenge to the West. Gingrich’s suggestions along these lines tracked his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:

  • Appraise the strength and growth rate of the enemy.
  • Assess the danger on a country-by-country basis, through each jihadist hub – Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
  • Shine a spotlight on the Muslim Brotherhood – the enemy’s theoretical backbone that is “so little understood by Washington elites that it deserves its own set of hearings.”
  • Identify the primary sources of funding, especially in the Gulf.
  • Learn from Arab countries that have successfully contained the radicals.
  • Study the radicalization process, particularly the role of mosques and social media in recruiting young Muslims into terrorism.
  • Tackle “the Islamist cyberthreat” – in fact, as Gingrich declared (to much applause), we should be “driving them off the Internet.”

The recent barbarities in Paris, the stepped up pace of al Qaeda and ISIS atrocities, must be a wake-up call. For Newt Gingrich, conservatives do not just have an opportunity to lead the way. If America is to survive as we know and love her, conservatives must see that opportunity as a duty. The hour is growing late.

Who is Grover Norquist? Does the NRA Know?

US-TAX REFORM-NORQUIST

UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 30, 2015:

On September 11, 2001, Grover Norquist met in his office with a group of terrorists (“jihadis” if you prefer) to determine how to mend relations between Muslim leaders and American government officials, while the smoke was still rising after the attacks in which 3,000 of our citizens where murdered.

That alone should have put Mr. Norquist outside of the circle of trust among discerning and patriotic American leaders in the conservative movement, but it did not.

Mr. Norquist creating the Islamic Free Market Institute with money from Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi should be a red flag to rational thinking people in “conservative” circles, and should ostracize Mr. Norquist from any participation among patriots in matters of import – nope.

Grover Norquist – the founder of Americans for Tax Reform – continues to move within conservative circles with ease. and has support from some prominent Republicans.  Not only are many leaders in the American conservative movement failing to raise serious questions about Norquist’s defense of easily identifiable terrorists, they defend him and call those who lay facts on the table “bigots” or other similarly absurd names.

Now, he is again up for election as one of the members of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association (NRA).  Will the NRA allow a man who promotes and defends terrorists to be re-elected to their Board?

In February 2014, a group of prominent Americans prepared a report entitled “The Islamist’s and their Enablers Assault on the Right – The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.”  The report contains facts surrounding Mr. Norquist’s history with and support for terrorists.  Among those who signed the report were:  the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, 81st Attorney General of the United States; and the Honorable R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.

The facts detailed in this report include:  Grover Norquist provided access to the White House for a number of terrorists during the Bush administration; Norquist is the registered agent for the Islamic Free Market Institute in Washington, D.C. which received money directly from terrorist/jihadi organizations including convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and the SAFA Trust;  Alamoudi’s deputy at the American Muslim Council (AMC), Khalid Saffuri, was made the Director of the Islamic Grover-300x205Institute with Norquist’s approval; Norquist promotes, works closely with, and defends a Muslim Brother/Jihadi named Suhail Khan, whose father, Mahboob Khan, was one of the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the world prior to his death; and Suhail Khan served under two successive Secretaries of Transportation with a security clearance, and continues to be promoted and given access to positions of trust inside conservative circles by Grover Norquist.

For years, Mr. Norquist’s only defense has been to say that he is being wrongly accused because of personal vendettas and smears.  Yet, a former U.S. Attorney General and CIA Director put their name on a report that factually lays out the case that Grover Norquist is an agent of hostile organizations and individuals operating inside the United States.

While President Obama releases terrorist leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and Attorney General Holder refuses to prosecute terrorist organizations in America despite overwhelming evidence (ISNA, NAIT, CAIR, MSA, et al), it is not likely Grover Norquist will be indicted for espionage, providing material support to terrorists, nor aiding and abetting terrorist organizations (Al Qaeada & Hamas).  However, professionals inside the U.S. government in the FBI, Department of Justice, and other arms of the government have the evidence they need to open an investigation on him, and have had that information for a number of years now.  Their failure to prosecute – or even investigate – Mr. Norquist does not in any way diminish the evidence on the table against him.

For years, the National Rifle Association has reminded Americans their right to keep and bear arms long pre-dates the founding of our great Republic.  For several years now they have had Grover Norquist on their Board.

This article is being written as a clarion call for all NRA members to contact the NRA and let them know that a terrorist supporter like Grover Noquist should not be represented on the NRA board, and Americans need to be willing to walk away from the NRA if it fails to take the appropriate action in this matter.

See Glenn Beck answer the question Who is Grover Norquist? here:

 

Islamic State’s Sinai ‘province’ claims simultaneous attacks on Egyptian military, police

Screen Shot 2015-01-30 at 5.39.21 PM-thumb-560x356-5596LWJ, By

Wilayat Sinai, or the Sinai Province of the Islamic State, claimed responsibility for a series of attacks throughout the Sinai yesterday via posts on Twitter. In a statement released earlier today, the organization said the operations were revenge against the Egyptian government for imprisoning the “sisters.” Two pictures of the attacks, one of which can be seen above, were posted with the statement.

The same justification has been offered by Ajnad Misr (“Soldiers of Egypt”) for its operations in Cairo and elsewhere. The jihadists claim that devout Muslim women are being oppressed by the government and, therefore, need to be avenged.

Wilayat Sinai says in its statement today that complex assaults were carried out against the Egyptian military and police in El Arish, Sheikh Zuweid, and Rafah. The raid in El Arish appears to have been the most sophisticated, as it involved three explosives-laden vehicles.

Interestingly, the group says that it launched the assaults, utilizing almost one hundred fighters (a claim that cannot be independently verified), after nighttime curfews went into effect. It did so to supposedly minimize the loss of civilian life.

The Islamic State and its so-called “provinces” are not known for their concern for civilian casualties in the Muslim majority world. Al Qaeda and its branches have attempted to steer their violence away from Muslim civilians, however. And, interestingly, Wilayat Sinai’s claim in this regard is again similar to how Ajnad Misr says it carries out its operations inside Egypt.

Ajnad Misr, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department in December, is an offshoot of Ansar Bayt al Maqdis (“ABM”) and has not sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s organization.

ABM’s Sinai faction pledged allegiance to the Islamic State last November and was quickly rebranded as the group’s Sinai “province.”

The number of casualties caused by the attacks varies across press accounts.

According to an Egyptian health official who spoke with Agence France Presse (AFP), at least 40 people were killed and dozens more were injured. Other reports say the number of casualties was lower. Wilayat Sinai’s statement implies that the number of people killed or wounded is much higher.

Regardless, the attacks are clearly the deadliest ones conducted by the group since it swore allegiance to the Islamic State.

The New York Times reports that the series of raids were carried out on the North Sinai security directorate headquarters, an army base, various security checkpoints, a hotel, the capital of the province, and a security camp.

Wilayat Sinai claimed several terrorist operations in late December, one on a natural gas pipeline that extends into Jordan and two others on Egyptian military vehicles.

The group has repeatedly targeted the Egyptian military in the Sinai, and killed dozens of soldiers in October, leading security forces to impose curfews in the North Sinai. Wilayat Sinai specifically mentions those curfews in today’s statement.

According to CNN, hundreds of police and troops have been killed in the last year and a half, since the military’s ouster of President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood in July 2013.

According to one report in the Financial Times, Wilayat Sinai’s large-scale operations may have spurred smaller cells in other cities to also strike out in Suez, Cairo, and Port Said.

Despite the military’s crackdown since October, security forces are clearly unable to prevent these types of significant, multi-stage assaults from happening, highlighting flaws in Egypt’s ability to combat the jihadists.

Following Thursday’s raids, Egypt’s Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) released a statement on the army spokesman’s Facebook page announcing it would ramp up operations to crackdown on militants in the Sinai. And President Abdul Fattah al Sisi cut his trip to an African Union summit in Ethiopia short due to the attacks.

In addition to the photo shown above, Wilayat Sinai released this photo from yesterday:

Screen Shot 2015-01-30 at 5.40.55 PM-thumb-560x356-5599

Middle East Terror: Iran’s influence grows after Yemen’s political collapse

1502613199

CSP, by Fred Fleitz, Jan. 30, 2015:

The international community is starting to realize the seriousness of the political chaos in Yemen, which has expanded Iranian influence in the region, bolstered Al Qaeda and could lead to the secession of the southern part of the country. This situation may also result in a political realignment that puts the family of the former autocratic president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, back in power in an alliance with the Iranian-backed Houthis, a Shiite insurgent group in northern Yemen that forced President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and his cabinet to resign last week.

The political deterioration in Yemen might have been prevented if the United States had fully backed Hadi and not gone along with a transition plan that removed Saleh from power in 2012 but did not force him from Yemen’s political scene.

Saleh used his influence to undermine the Hadi government through army units and tribes loyal to him. While Hadi closely cooperated with U.S. counterterror operations against Al Qaeda, the Obama administration did nothing to prop him up. Unaware of the how fragile the Hadi government was, the Obama administration as recently as last September claimed Yemen was a success story for U.S. Middle East policy.

On Sept. 10, President Obama said in a speech, “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.” Two weeks later, the United States recommended U.S. citizens leave Yemen after Houthi rebels occupied Sanaa, the capital, and Al Qaeda fired a rocket at the U.S. embassy.

Massive Arab Spring protests in 2011 led to Saleh’s resignation in February 2012 after more than 33 years in power. Having been granted immunity from prosecution in a deal that handed power to Hadi, Saleh’s main objective since he left office reportedly has been to propel his son, Ahmed Ali Saleh, to the Yemeni presidency.

Even though his government persecuted the Houthis and they were part of the Arab Spring demonstrations that drove him from office, Saleh struck an alliance with Houthi leaders that allowed them to occupy Sanaa last September. Because of recent demonstrations in Sanaa by its Sunni majority against the resignation of the Hadi government and the occupation of the city by the Shiite Houthis, Houthi leaders may be considering restoring the corrupt Saleh family to power or installing a Saleh family ally. According to Yemeni law, Parliament Speaker Yahia al-Rai, a close ally of Saleh, is next in line to assume the presidency.

The return of the Saleh family to power would be a step backward for Yemen and could pose significant security implications for the region and the United States. If the Saleh family or a Saleh ally assumes the presidency, the new government probably would abandon Hadi’s power-sharing and political reform efforts, most of which were opposed by the Houthis. Such a transition would bring back the corruption and probably the oppression of the Saleh regime.

A new Yemeni government, whether it is headed by the Saleh family or not, will be controlled by the Iran-backed Houthis. This deeply worries the Saudis, who regard the Houthis as an Iranian proxy and last year declared them a terrorist organization. Although the U.S. might be able to buy off a new Yemeni government to get it to continue to participate in counterterrorism efforts, the Iran angle, the Houthis’ hatred of the United States and Saleh’s possible anger over being removed from power could make this difficult to achieve.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the world’s most dangerous Al Qaeda franchise, and the separatist Southern Movement, which wants southern Yemen to secede, are poised to exploit Yemen’s political chaos and may be collaborating. AQAP has tried to take advantage of the chaos of the last few months by staging suicide attacks in Sanaa.

Further complicating this situation, ISIS reportedly has entered the scene in Yemen and is competing with AQAP for recruits. Saudi leaders also are worried about Islah, a growing Muslim Brotherhood party in Yemen.

Although the Houthis are enemies of the Southern Movement and AQAP, they are looking for autonomy for their area in the north and probably have no plans to invade the south to battle these groups. This could lead to the secession of parts of southern Yemen (which had been a separate state until 1990) and a stronger, more consolidated AQAP.

The Obama administration needs to work with regional states, Europe and the United Nations to come up with a comprehensive strategy to promote stability, power sharing among regional groups and a new constitution in Yemen. Though there are currently many unknowns as to how the political crisis there will play out, given the country’s reliance on Saudi financial aid to run the government — aid that Riyadh cut off in December — and the Houthis’ hostility toward AQAP, an agreement between the international community and the Houthis to implement such a strategy may eventually be possible.

But even if such an agreement is reached, Iran’s increased influence in Yemen through the Houthis is unlikely to be reversed and will pose new security concerns for Saudi Arabia, the United States and the region.

Islamic State Affiliate Attacks Sinai as Muslim Brotherhood Calls for Jihad

The flag of the Sinai-based terror group Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis flag. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

The flag of the Sinai-based terror group Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis flag. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

CSP, by Aaron Kliegman, Jan. 30, 2015:

Islamic State’s Sinai Province, formerly known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, took credit via Twitter for coordinated attacks against the Egyptian military and police on Thursday killing at least 26 people and wounding 60 more.

According to security officials, the terrorists first targeted a military base, military hotel, and police offices in el-Arish, the capital of North Sinai. A car bomb went off by the rear of the military base while militants fired rockets at each building. Army checkpoints were also attacked throughout the city.

The terrorists targeted two additional towns, nearby Sheik Zuwayid and Gaza-bordering Rafah.

Despite the claim of responsibility, Egypt’s military spokesman blamed the Muslim Brotherhood, with whom the military has been locked in a struggle with since the military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of Mohammed Morsi. There is a potential historical link between the Brotherhood and Sinai Province.

Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (ABM) was inspired by al-Qaeda and formed during the January 2011 uprisings against Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s long-time ruler. Some believe the Muslim Brotherhood is connected to Sinai Province and that the former was and is instrumental in creating and aiding the latter.

This is in part because the ISIS-affiliated group increased its activity after Morsi was brought down, with one security expert stating that the group was “avenging the Brotherhood.” Additionally, Nabil Naeem, founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, said in a 2013 article that ABM had been funded by the Brotherhood. Refaat Said, leader of the Socialist Party, Tagammu, went further to say that Morsi himself placed ABM in Sinai and released some members from prison. Moreover, Brotherhood Without Violence, a group with Brotherhood ties, states that ISIS in Sinai is the Brotherhood’s military wing.

The Egyptian government does have motivation to lay an ISIS-affiliated group at the Brotherhood’s feet but the possibility is important to note.

The Brotherhood also relates to the developing Sinai situation due to a recent visit to the U.S. State Department this week by a delegation of its leaders. This group met with State Department officials in Washington, DC to discuss their continuous opposition to President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government.

Soon after the State Department meeting and just two days before the coordinated terror attacks in Sinai, the Muslim Brotherhood called for a “long, uncompromised jihad.” It is unclear if there is a link between this call for jihad and ISIS affiliates causing violence in Sinai, but the timing certainly makes for an interesting coincidence considering the Obama Administration’s insistence that the Muslim Brotherhood maintains a commitment to non-violence.

Egypt is an important ally for the West in its fight with global jihad and President Sisi’s efforts in this endeavor are essential, but his government is being challenged by this entrenched insurgency. The United States should be working with al-Sisi to fight jihad in all forms, whether from the Muslim Brotherhood or the spreading Islamic State.

Andrew Klavan: Attack of the But-Heads!

Truth Revolt, by Andrew Klavan, Jan. 29, 2015:

That’s right. It’s the Attack of the But-Heads.

TRANSCRIPT:

I’m Andrew Klavan and this is the Revolting Truth.

Today a tale of horror all the more frightening because it’s true.

As a poisonous miasmic fog of sharia creeps like a poisonous miasmic fog of sharia across the nations of the west, strange creatures are growing up among us.  They are haunting our halls of power, the sewers of our news media and the circus tents of our universities. They move in hordes as mindless and destructive as the zombies in The Walking Dead or the Democrat voters in the last presidential election or the walking dead democrat voters in Chicago and Philadelphia.

If you listen carefully, in the watches of the night, you can hear these shambling monsters murmuring their eldritch refrain:  “I believe in Free speech but…  I support the first amendment but… I believe in free expression but…”

That’s right.  It’s The Attack of The But-Heads.

The “but” in the phrase “I believe in free speech but…” is bigger than Kim Kardashian’s, has more wiggle room than Jennifer Lopez’ and is as white and soft as Kate Upton’s…  all right, maybe I just got distracted on that last one.

But the point is…  the but-heads are everywhere and they’ve come to devour your rights, one exception at a time.

Consider this. When Islamist terrorists staged a vicious mass murder in Paris in response to a magazine satire of Muhammed, the terrorists declared, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” No, wait that wasn’t the terrorists that was President Obama.  No, no, it was the terrorists.  No, it was Obama.  No, it must’ve been the terrorists, right?

Obama:  The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Anyway, whether it was the terrorists or our president, they were expressing the creeping but-head belief that there should be an exception to free speech when it comes to blasphemy.  The Obama administration has even lent support to United Nations efforts to curtail blasphemous speech, and in England, Italy and Holland, people are being prosecuted for anti-religious speech already.  Now I know, many of the west’s foundational nations had anti-blasphemy laws. That’s why they executed Socrates and Jesus. So what could possibly go wrong?

But in the present day, those who try to outlaw blasphemy only look like western human beings. They’re really but-heads.

In our media the horror continues. Even after the Paris slaughter, many western news outlets refused to display cartoons that had offended the delicate sensibilities of cold blooded Islamist butchers.  Editors at The New York Times, a former newspaper, said, “We do not normally publish… material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities.”  Which was a lie since they’ve repeatedly published material offensive to Christians.  But then the editors of the Times only look like free-speaking men and women…  they’re really but-heads.

Then there’s our universities. From Yale to Purdue to UC Berkeley, the academy’s but-heads have banned, persecuted and harassed students, teachers and visiting speakers whose speech violated leftist principles by being truthful about Islamism.

So be afraid.  The Nazi-like thugs of militant islam are only men and can be destroyed…  but the but-heads are the hollowed-out shell of free people animated by oppressive undead ideas.  They’re your worst nightmare.  No buts.

I’m Andrew Klavan with the Revolting Truth.

Islamists Seek to Restrict Free Speech Following Jihadist Assault

censor-450x304Frontpage, by Andrew Harrod, Jan. 30, 2015:

“Freedom of speech is not total,” proclaimed the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy’s (CSID) William Lawrence at its January 22 panel on the “Muslim Response to Charlie Hebdo:  Understanding the Root Causes of Radicalization.”  Lawrence’s caveat disturbingly introduced false justifications for non-violently achieving the very sharia censorship sought by Charlie Hebdo’s jihadist murderers before a National Press Club audience of about fifty.

The Islamist apologist CSID focused in the panel on Muslims and not the slain at Charlie Hebdo as victims.  Lawrence’s opening condemnation of the globally infamous January 7 Paris massacre as a “complete aberration” of “Islamic teachings” quickly gave way to criticism of the satire magazine’s victims.  Their murders were “orgies of violence unleashed on . . . purveyors” of “bigoted provocations,” making Charlie Hebdo’s satire not just irreverent, but immoral in Lawrence’s estimation.  “When did bigotry get so needy” that it sheltered behind free speech claims, Lawrence later asked while quoting an article criticizing cartoon racism, as if criticizing Islamic ideas equaled individual prejudice.  Accordingly, Lawrence cited the legally discredited phrase from American Supreme Court history that “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater,” a universal talking point of censors.

Islamist and sharia apologist Dahlia Mogahed continued Lawrence’s use of the Muslim “race” card implicitly blaming the Charlie Hebdo victims and focused on Europe’s “limits and boundaries of tolerance.”  “Certain things will not be said” in the United States, “not because it’s illegal, but because it’s immoral,” she noted without defining Charlie Hebdo’s immorality.  Historic “offensive cartoons” of African-Americans make modern Americans “rightly cringe.”  Mogahed’s equivalence between racists and Charlie Hebdo entailed that the French should “hurry up and get enlightened” about satirists.  Yet Mogahed bemoaned how many instead sought merely to “reassert our right to offend.”

CSID President Radwan Masmoudi, like his fellow panelists, wrongly equated religious ideas with individuals as worthy of protection.  He emphasized that “every freedom also has limits” and excluded a “right to transgress on others” during audience questioning.  Masmoudi described a “big debate” over whether free speech includes a right to “insult others” or “religion.”

A bizarrely benign understanding of Islamic doctrine apparently underlay Masmoudi’s reverence for the faith.  He termed blasphemy provisions (often carrying the traditional Islamic death penalty) in countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia “un-Islamic” and a regime tool used as “only a façade” for popularity.  The new constitution in Masmoudi’s native Tunisia, he meanwhile declared, has “no blasphemy laws.”

An interview with Masmoudi, however, critically countered that Tunisian constitution’s Article 6 contained contradictory commitments to “freedom of belief” and to “protect the sacred” against blasphemy.  Masmoudi called Article 6 “one of the most difficult clauses” in the constitutional drafting, a clause negotiated until right before the January 26, 2014, ratification.  This article “meant to balance freedom of speech” and the position that “you should not attack others,” including the “religions or faiths or beliefs” with which they happen to identify.

Masmoudi’s protestations notwithstanding, he might as well support Muslim blasphemy laws.  Asked about speech restrictions in Muslim-majority countries, as exemplified by a 2013 conviction in the “model” Muslim democracy Turkey for tweets mocking Islam, Masmoudi referenced a supposed “right not to be insulted.”  “It is dangerous to insult people based upon their race or . . . religion,” Masmoudi elaborated with once again a race/religion conflation.  Such offenses are “not . . . conducive to peace or a democratic society,” Masmoudi added in his apparent acceptance of a violent heckler’s veto like that suffered by Charlie Hebdo.  For Masmoudi, who is “not a freedom of expression fundamentalist,” finding a “balance” between free speech and not upsetting religious feelings will be a “most difficult thing” and, worryingly, “will vary from one country to another.”

Masmoudi himself in the conversation undercut his absurd assertion during audience questioning that “freedom of religion is a very, very important and strong principle in Islam.”  Masmoudi noted that an addition to Article 6 prohibited apostasy accusations or takfir as a form of death threat.  Yet Masmoudi assured that “there is nothing in Islam in the text of the Quran or the sunnah” demanding death for apostasy, canonical texts, scholarly books, and widespread modern practice to the contrary notwithstanding.  Rather, Masmoudi insisted that apostasy death penalties came from “not Islamic law,” but somehow distinct “Islamic traditions . . . societies . . . cultures.”  Masmoudi similarly analyzed the origins of Islamic blasphemy laws, contradicting again Islamic canons (see here and here) and practice.

Such is the analysis of CSID, described by Lawrence as the world’s “preeminent NGO” for the “study of democratic and Islamic thought” and their “modern synthesis.”  Not free speech under murderous assault, but offense to Muslim religious sensibilities, falsely equated with prejudices like racism, formed the panel’s main concern demanding, where possible, legal restrictions.  Contrary to his assurances, Lawrence did not in any respect “move beyond” a supposedly “superficial binary” of “Muslim extremists” and free speech.  Islamic ideas in the panelists’ presentation, by contrast, are thoroughly benign and unworthy of any critical scrutiny.  The views of CSID and others ominously portend further future threats, even if not necessarily lethal, to free speech.